Elton John and others ordered to repay $13 million legal bill after losing hacking privacy lawsuit, Billboard reports

A judge has ordered Elton John and multiple other claimants to repay roughly $13 million in legal fees after they lost a lawsuit centered on claims that the Daily Mail unlawfully obtained private information, according to Billboard’s reporting on the case.

The lawsuit, which the music legend brought as part of a group action, alleged that the publication’s reporting was based on hacking or the improper acquisition of personal material. The claimants sought legal damages, but the court found against them, clearing the way for a separate costs decision.

Billboard reports that the repayment figure would be handled through a costs order following the dismissal or loss of the underlying claims. Under English civil procedure, costs are often awarded to the winning side, and parties that lose can be required to cover the other side’s legal expenses, subject to any reductions or specific terms set by the court.

The music industry figure and the other plaintiffs are now facing the practical impact of that costs ruling, which can be substantial even for litigants with teams of lawyers and advisers. The order also highlights the financial exposure that can follow privacy and media-access cases, where questions of evidence, relevance, and procedural requirements can be decisive.

The Daily Mail, the publisher implicated in the hacking allegation, was positioned in the litigation as the prevailing party for the purposes of costs, according to Billboard’s account. While the case involved allegations about how private information was obtained, the costs award is tied to the outcome of the litigation rather than independently resolving every disputed fact about the underlying conduct.

The case is part of a broader set of privacy and unlawful access disputes involving tabloid reporting in the United Kingdom, which have continued to generate litigation over the use of personal data. For artists and other public figures, these disputes can affect how they communicate with audiences, how their teams manage sensitive information, and how media outlets source or verify information used in reporting.

Billboard’s report does not indicate whether the claimants will challenge the costs decision or pursue further procedural steps. As with other civil costs outcomes, any next move would likely depend on the specifics of the ruling, deadlines for appeal, and whether a higher court would be asked to revisit the decision.

For now, the costs order represents an immediate financial consequence for the plaintiffs in a case that the court did not accept on the merits, and it underscores the stakes for media and privacy disputes where the line between legally protected reporting and alleged improper acquisition can become the subject of high-cost litigation.